http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/local/8005752.htm
Given the rising demands on U.S. forces from a global war on terror, including long, arduous tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense officials will ask an independent commission to assess whether current pay and benefits are right for attracting and retaining a quality force.
The Department of Defense plans to announce a seven-member commission of outside pay and personnel experts to study the sometimes confusing mix of pay, allowances, bonuses, special pay and non-cash benefits that has evolved out of the Cold War era of large standing forces.
The adequacy of Reserve and National Guard compensation also will be reviewed given the greater reliance today on those components.
The commission could begin work as early as April and make recommendations to the secretary of defense by early 2005.
Making the pay system more flexible to compensate warriors battling terrorists and protecting the homeland will be a goal, an official said. Another will be ensuring balance between pay and non-cash benefits and between current and future compensation such as retirement.
Defense officials say obvious weaknesses in pay have become apparent during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. An example is the lingering controversy over Congress' decision last April to raise the monthly Family Separation Allowance by $150 and Imminent Danger Pay by $75. Lawmakers believed the hikes were the best way to boost pay quickly for deployed forces and mobilized reservists. The increases were made retroactive to October 2002 and were to expire by October 2003.
Defense officials opposed the increases as inefficient for rewarding combat forces. Though lacking a ready alternative, the Bush administration quietly urged Congress to allow the FSA and IDP increases to expire. Democrats criticized the administration for trying to roll back pay for troops at war.
By August, the political heat was so high Defense officials held a press conference to dismiss as "absurd" any notion that they would support a drop in pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There just wasn't a solid plan yet to better target the increases. David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, noted that the raise in FSA, from
$100 a month to $250 a month, went to tens of thousands of members not assigned to combat areas, including those on routine sea deployments and receiving stateside training. The IDP raise went to service members in scores of designated danger areas around the world.
Another problem with FSA, which is designed to ease extra expenses on a family like home repairs or child care when a parent is absent, is it doesn't benefit unmarried troops, even in Iraq, Chu said.
The department promised to give Congress a replacement pay plan, aimed more precisely at personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would involve higher Hardship Duty Pay, which can vary in amount between arduous assignments, and offset a rollback in FSA and IDP in combat areas.
As 2003 came to close, however, Congress voted just to extend last April's FSA and IDP increases at least through December 2004.
Defense officials had considered proposing another year-long extension so the pay commission could tackle the FSA/IDP issue. Instead they decided the department needed to act sooner. Defense officials began shaping a new proposal and softening their former opposition.
The department is expected soon to recommend keeping Imminent Danger Pay at $225 a month, making permanent last April's $75 increase.
On FSA, the department likely will recommend only a partial rollback and will protect the pay of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old FSA rate of $100 a month had not been adjusted since 1991 and deserved to be raised. But $150 probably was too high. So Defense officials are expected to recommend some lowering of the current $250 rate.
For troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as of Dec. 31, the department might recommend that current FSA recipients be grandfathered from a cut until they get back home.
The whole flap might have been avoided if the military had had a more flexible pay for troops in combat areas.
The Army, for example, needs to keep some units in Iraq beyond the promised 12-month rotation date so it wants to provide them extra compensation. Charles Abell, Chu's principal deputy, responded Jan. 20 with a new incentive package for "involuntary" tour extensions of up to $1,000 more a month. For that, Abell had to combine two existing pays.
Hardship Duty Pay, he said, can be raised by $200 a month to the reach the $300 ceiling set in law. Also, members involuntarily extended in Iraq will be eligible to choose between $800 a month in the new but little used Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP), or they can select instead a follow-on "stabilized tour" from which they can't be deployed for at least as long as their tour of service in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Pay packages to reward "voluntary" extensions in Iraq "of three, six and 12 months" also are under review. Defense officials also will seek authority to pay up to $1,000 a month in Hardship Duty Pay. Long term, HDP could provide the kind of targeted pay flexibility Congress and the department lacked last April.
Given the rising demands on U.S. forces from a global war on terror, including long, arduous tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense officials will ask an independent commission to assess whether current pay and benefits are right for attracting and retaining a quality force.
The Department of Defense plans to announce a seven-member commission of outside pay and personnel experts to study the sometimes confusing mix of pay, allowances, bonuses, special pay and non-cash benefits that has evolved out of the Cold War era of large standing forces.
The adequacy of Reserve and National Guard compensation also will be reviewed given the greater reliance today on those components.
The commission could begin work as early as April and make recommendations to the secretary of defense by early 2005.
Making the pay system more flexible to compensate warriors battling terrorists and protecting the homeland will be a goal, an official said. Another will be ensuring balance between pay and non-cash benefits and between current and future compensation such as retirement.
Defense officials say obvious weaknesses in pay have become apparent during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. An example is the lingering controversy over Congress' decision last April to raise the monthly Family Separation Allowance by $150 and Imminent Danger Pay by $75. Lawmakers believed the hikes were the best way to boost pay quickly for deployed forces and mobilized reservists. The increases were made retroactive to October 2002 and were to expire by October 2003.
Defense officials opposed the increases as inefficient for rewarding combat forces. Though lacking a ready alternative, the Bush administration quietly urged Congress to allow the FSA and IDP increases to expire. Democrats criticized the administration for trying to roll back pay for troops at war.
By August, the political heat was so high Defense officials held a press conference to dismiss as "absurd" any notion that they would support a drop in pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There just wasn't a solid plan yet to better target the increases. David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, noted that the raise in FSA, from
$100 a month to $250 a month, went to tens of thousands of members not assigned to combat areas, including those on routine sea deployments and receiving stateside training. The IDP raise went to service members in scores of designated danger areas around the world.
Another problem with FSA, which is designed to ease extra expenses on a family like home repairs or child care when a parent is absent, is it doesn't benefit unmarried troops, even in Iraq, Chu said.
The department promised to give Congress a replacement pay plan, aimed more precisely at personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would involve higher Hardship Duty Pay, which can vary in amount between arduous assignments, and offset a rollback in FSA and IDP in combat areas.
As 2003 came to close, however, Congress voted just to extend last April's FSA and IDP increases at least through December 2004.
Defense officials had considered proposing another year-long extension so the pay commission could tackle the FSA/IDP issue. Instead they decided the department needed to act sooner. Defense officials began shaping a new proposal and softening their former opposition.
The department is expected soon to recommend keeping Imminent Danger Pay at $225 a month, making permanent last April's $75 increase.
On FSA, the department likely will recommend only a partial rollback and will protect the pay of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old FSA rate of $100 a month had not been adjusted since 1991 and deserved to be raised. But $150 probably was too high. So Defense officials are expected to recommend some lowering of the current $250 rate.
For troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as of Dec. 31, the department might recommend that current FSA recipients be grandfathered from a cut until they get back home.
The whole flap might have been avoided if the military had had a more flexible pay for troops in combat areas.
The Army, for example, needs to keep some units in Iraq beyond the promised 12-month rotation date so it wants to provide them extra compensation. Charles Abell, Chu's principal deputy, responded Jan. 20 with a new incentive package for "involuntary" tour extensions of up to $1,000 more a month. For that, Abell had to combine two existing pays.
Hardship Duty Pay, he said, can be raised by $200 a month to the reach the $300 ceiling set in law. Also, members involuntarily extended in Iraq will be eligible to choose between $800 a month in the new but little used Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP), or they can select instead a follow-on "stabilized tour" from which they can't be deployed for at least as long as their tour of service in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Pay packages to reward "voluntary" extensions in Iraq "of three, six and 12 months" also are under review. Defense officials also will seek authority to pay up to $1,000 a month in Hardship Duty Pay. Long term, HDP could provide the kind of targeted pay flexibility Congress and the department lacked last April.
Facebook
Twitter